Jurisdiction Analysis PDF

READ THROUGH NOTES AND RANDOM SECTION UPON COMPLETION, MAKE SURE YOU DON’T MISS STUFF! Jurisdiction Analysis Double check who is being concerned: D as an individual, or as a corporation!! Within the federal system, there are three primary types of federal courts: 94 District Courts (trial courts),...

READ THROUGH NOTES AND RANDOM SECTION UPON COMPLETION, MAKE SURE YOU DON’T MISS STUFF! Jurisdiction Analysis Double check who is being concerned: D as an individual, or as a corporation!! Within the federal system, there are three primary types of federal courts: 94 District Courts (trial courts), 13 Courts of Appeals (intermediate appellate courts), and the United States Supreme Court (the court of final review). 1. Is there general, in rem jurisdiction over defendant’s property? a. In rem jurisdiction? YES ONLY IF: i. Dispute is over property in the forum state b. Quasi in rem jurisdiction? YES IF BOTH: i. Not intangible property (Shaffer) ii. Purposeful Availment (Shaffer, International Shoe) 1. Subject matter Jurisdiction: the power of a court to hear a case of a particular type or subject matter. 2 requirements must be satisfied for a case to be filed in federal court as a matter of SMJ: 1) The Constitution must confer the federal court with subject matter jurisdiction in Article Ill, section 2 AND 2) Congress must provide subject matter jurisdiction by statute (Congress need not confer subject matter jurisdiction to the full extent the Constitution allows). Note: State courts generally have subject matter jurisdiction over just about any type of case, unless Congress has expressly given the federal courts exclusive subject matter jurisdiction. a. Federal question i. Well-pleaded complaint: Original complaint must be based on federal law claims to satisfy federal questions subject matter jurisdiction b. Diversity jurisdiction: Dont forget if it’s class action use diff approach i. Amount in controversy - Diversity cases may be heard in federal court "where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs." 1. If a jury would reasonably award more than $75K, then the amount in controversy is met. 2. Consider whether damages are extreme (especially for punitives) 3. Watch out for instances where you CAN’T aggregate!!! ii. Complete diversity: To satisfy the diversity statute, all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants (arose out of Strawbridge v. Curtiss). The precise and correct terminology is “citizenship,” with domicile as the test for an individual’s citizenship, and the test for corporate citizenship defined by 28 U.S.C. 1332 (“a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business”), along with the Hertz nerve center test as the test for principal place of business. 1. Domicile - Individual: a. A person is a citizen of the state in which she is domiciled. A domicile is the last state in which a person has resided with the intent to remain indefinitely. "Indefinitely" means a person must live in the state on an open-ended basis. Note: vague intentions  don’t prevent you from having a domicile in the state where you are currently living. Note: A person has one domicile at all times and does not lose her domicile until she acquires a new domicile. Note: To determine diversity, the court only looks at the citizenship of the parties on the date that the plaintiff files the case. b. Indicators of objective intent for purposes of domicile test include: driver’s license, receipt of mail, payment of taxes, location of property, bank records, voting registration. Subjective statement of intent can also support! (See Zuckerberg) 2. Corporation a. Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) (1): a corporation is "a citizen of every state and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the state or foreign state where it has its principal place of business". i. The principal place of business is "where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities." The "nerve center" test. (Hertz Corp. v. Friend) b. Exceptional cases (Daimler) i. Is there a continuous and systematic affiliation with the state so substantial that it renders it essentially at home in the forum state? 3. Unincorporated Association: citizen of the states of each of its members (See Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.) c. FOR JOINDER - Supplemental jurisdiction i. Pendent (by plaintiff) v. Ancillary (by defendant) ii. Basis in federal court 1. §1367(a) (codifies Gibbs and supplemental jurisdiciton) “common nucleus of operative fact” iii. Basis is diversity jurisdiction 1. §1367(b) (codifies Owen) limits supplemental jurisdiction for plaintiffs a. The defendant receives the benefit of a more liberal rule because the court has held that Congress intends to give defendants a full opportunity to defend in a forum chosen by the plaintiff. iv. Discretionary considerations §1376(c) 2. Personal jurisdiction a. Jurisdiction by consent i. Consent by registration (EX: Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad) ii. Waiver of challenge to personal jurisdiction 1. Failure to raise as least favored defense 12(b)(2) 2. Waiver occurs where the defendant acts in a way that is inconsistent with his argument that the forum lacks a basis for asserting personal jurisdiction over him iii. Service of process (tag jurisdiction) (Burnham) 1. The term "service of process" is loosely used to refer to the delivery of various court papers to a party in the course of litigation.  2. The Mullane case states that due process of law requires that service of process be made by a method "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action." 3. Rule 4 governs iv. Forum selection clause 1. Fundamental fairness test (Carnival Cruise Line) b. Statutory basis: long-arm statute i. General jurisdiction: It exists when the defendant's contacts with the forum are so extensive that a defendant is essentially at home in that forum. When a defendant is subject to general jurisdiction in a forum, the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction there, no matter where the claim arose. Note: foreign companies are never gonna have general jurisdiction in the US. Note: Gen. Juris. is determined on the date of filing, not the date that the incident arose. Note: “For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile; for a corporation, it is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home.” (Daimler) 1. Corporation: A corporate defendant's contacts are sufficiently extensive in a state to give rise to general jurisdiction wherever the defendant is at home (Daimler AG v. Bauman). A corporation is considered to be at home in both of the following two different places (Daimler): a. Principal place of business (the nerve center (Hertz)) i. Where do high level officers direct, control, and coordinate business activities? b. Place of Incorporation 2. Individual: Individuals are subject to general jurisdiction, that is, they have sufficiently extensive contacts in a state, wherever they are considered to be at home. A person will be subject to general in personam jurisdiction wherever they are domiciled. a. Indicators of objective intent for purposes of domicile test include: driver’s license, receipt of mail, payment of taxes, location of property, bank records, voting registration. Subjective statement of intent can also support! (See Zuckerberg) 3. Unincorporated Association: citizen of the states of each of its members (See Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.) ii. Specific Jurisdiction: It exists when the plaintiff's claim arises out of the defendant's purposeful contact in the forum. A single contact may be sufficient to give rise to specific jurisdiction as long as that contact in the state gave rise to the claim. 1. Constitutional basis (compliance with due process clause of the US Constitution) a. The minimum contacts test focuses on the defendant's conduct aimed at the forum state. (introduced by International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington) i. Purposeful availment (WWV). Purposeful availment focuses on the defendant’s decision to engage in conduct that impacts a state. If a defendant deliberately aims its conduct at the state, the defendant may be subject to personal jurisdiction in the state if a lawsuit arises from that conduct. Note: mistake/”I didn’t know” isn’t an excuse. Note: A foreign company needs to target a specific state to submit to its jurisdiction – generally targeting the U.S. is not enough (Nicastro). NOTE: IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE CLAIMS, DO AN ANALYSIS FOR EACH ONE!!! 1. Contracts purposeful availment (Burger King) a. On balance, do the contract terms, prior negotiations, contemplated future consequences, and actual course of performance indicate the forum is appropriate? 2. Products liability purposeful availment a. Forseeability “stream of commerce” b. History of stream of commerce doctrine: i. It is fair to subject a defendant to jurisdiction if it serves the market for its product in the forum state, either directly or indirectly. (dicta in Worldwide Volkswagen v. Woodson) ii. Justice O'Connor's opinion in Asahi rejected the argument that indirect sales into a state alone would support personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer (Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court). But no clear holding, concurrences suggested indirect sales would be enough. Created a split between lower courts. Court split again in Nicastro, the controlling plurality opinion, Kennedy, held a position similar to O’Connor’s in Asahi. c. Tips For Exam: DISCUSS THE SPLIT, Nicastro, Etc… 1. You can say with some confidence that, if the manufacturer did not try to sell in that state itself, and if there is no regular flow of its goods into the state, that it will not be subject to jurisdiction if a single product is resold in the state and injured the plaintiff. 2. If the manufacturer itself made efforts to sell its products in the  state by advertising there, having sales representatives there, or encouraging resales into that state, it will be subject to personal jurisdiction when its product is purchased there and injures the plaintiff. 3. If the manufacturer sells to a distributor outside the state, which resells the manufacturer's product into the state in quantity on a regular basis, there is a credible argument that a majority of justices would support jurisdiction. 4. Based on Worldwide Volkswagen, the fact that the plaintiff brings the goods into state will not support personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer if the product causes injury there. 3. Intentional torts purposeful availment a. Test for Intentional Torts that arose out of Walden v. Fiore: Has defendant’s conduct connected him to forum state in a meaningful way? i. Mere injury to the forum resident is not sufficient ii. Personal knowledge of plaintiff’s strong forum connections is not enough. iii. Exercise of jurisdiction must be based on intentional conduct by the defendant that creates the necessary contacts with the forum. The defendant’s conduct has to connect to the forum state, not just to the plaintiff who lives there. b. Did the defendant knowingly commit an injury that ties them to the forum state? (Calder and Walden) 4. E-Commerce a. Zippo sliding scale b. A passive site that simply posts info → no PJ c. An interactive site that enables information exchange →  depends on level of interaction and its commercial nature. Use Rao test: i. Did the defendant (1) direct electronic activity into the state (2) with manifest intent to engage in business or other interactions (3) such that its activity creates, in person within the state, a potential cause of action cognizable in the forum? d. A “doing business” site that enters into contracts with residents of forum state involving knowing and repeated transmission of computer files → yes PJ ii. Nexus (BMS, Ford). If a defendant has purposefully availed itself of a forum state, does the dispute that is the subject of the litigation arise out of or relate to the defendant's forum conduct? Note: systematically serving a market by advertising, selling, and servicing products in a state, could have influenced the P, and is thus enough to show nexus, even if it does not specifically cause the accident (Ford Motor Co.). Note: think about the state’s interest in the dispute. Note: consider whether the P actually saw an advert. iii. If purposeful availment & nexus are met, minimum contact with the forum state is established. However, additional factors must be considered to determine if the exercise of jurisdiction is fair and reasonable (stated in WWV, applied in Asahi): Note: its possible that, with just a weak showing of minimum contacts, a P may be able persuade the court that, in light of the additional factors, the court should conclude that the exercise of jurisdiciton is fair (a D may do the same to indicate it’s unreasonable). 1. Burden to the defendant of defending the suit in a distant forum (there’s a presumption of fairness to the D, however, once minimum contacts are established) 2. Plaintiff’s interest in litigating in a convenient forum 3. Interest of forum state in adjudicating the lawsuit 4. Interstate judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution of controversies 5. Interest of states in furthering substantive social policies (e.g. accountability for malfunctioning products, product liability) RANDOM STUFF: